Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:10PM
from the have-you-tried-turning-it-off-and-then-on-again dept.

fishdan writes "I'm a long time Slashdot member with excellent karma. I am also the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Congress in the Massachusetts 6th District. I am on the ballot. I polled 7% in the only poll that included me, which was taken six weeks ago, before I had done any advertising, been in any debates or been on television. In the most recent debate, the general consensus was that I moved a very partisan crowd in my favor. In the two days since that debate, donations and page views are up significantly. Yesterday I received a stunning email from the local ABC affiliate telling me they were going to exclude me from their televised debate because I did not have $50,000 in campaign contributions, even though during my entire campaign I have pointedly and publicly refused corporate donations. They cited several other trumped up reasons, including polling at 10%, but there has not been a poll that included me since the one six weeks ago — and I meet their other requirements."

#2 Can we blow this up? Slashdot. Reddit. Anywhere you post political talk -- they need to see this. I'm not a fringe candidate. Any research at all reveals I am a calm and rational proponent of the ideas of liberty. Video Bloggers? What do you think?

It seems the theory is, "Make a big enough stink, this ABC affiliate will cave." It doesn't look like there's been any back-and-forth with ABC on this, though. And she did include her name and email address. And their phone number is right on their website.

Asking them about it seems like the first, and most appropriate course of action. Don't just assume it's a conspiracy and grab the pitchforks. Just a thought.

I wrote back and they replied insisting that the $50k was a firm number. I had forgotten too that they had approached me about buying advertizing from them several weeks ago and I rejected them because although Boston is the major DMA, my campaign can't afford to pay to broadcast to 5million who are not in my district.

#2 Can we blow this up? Slashdot. Reddit. Anywhere you post political talk -- they need to see this. I'm not a fringe candidate. Any research at all reveals I am a calm and rational proponent of the ideas of liberty. Video Bloggers? What do you think?

It seems the theory is, "Make a big enough stink, this ABC affiliate will cave." It doesn't look like there's been any back-and-forth with ABC on this, though. And she did include her name and email address. And their phone number is right on their website.

The problem is, Joe Q. Public does not care. Slashdot? Reddit? They'd be lucky to know about those sites, even if their friends send them links constantly.

No, the only way to "blow it up" is to get your voice out there in the mainstream media. Write an op-ed in the papers. Possibly buy some advertising. Get the word out there that you exist.

On the day of the debate - run your own commentary - in real time, as the debate goes on. If you've done it right, people will be bringing your commentary up (especially said mainstream media) as well.

Trying to get that ABC affiliate to cave? Remember - never mess with the ones who own the press.because they'll always have the final say. You might get invited to the debate, but everytime you speak, they may have "technical" troubles or cut to advertising when it's your turn. Or just make it look like you're a wacko in the runup ads for the debate.

Or even worse, invite other fringe parties to your podium, calling it the "fringe party podium" during the debate - in the name of fairness, it's everyone who couldn't (note the word I used) pay for the position (even though it's because you refused the money).

This guy is a libertarian, why is he whining? He's fighting for the right for people & organizations to do whatever they want regardless of fairness, ethics, or consequence. ABC is a corporation, privately owned. If ABC doesn't want to include a candidate in their debate because they don't accept corporate donations that is their right and I support ABC in this right due to the inherent dramatic irony. if he wants ABC to treat him fairly he should get a better political ideology.

This guy is a libertarian, why is he whining? He's fighting for the right for people & organizations to do whatever they want regardless of fairness, ethics, or consequence.

citation needed.Libertarians believe that people have a right to make an informed decision that suits best their needs. Suppression of information is not libertarian, even the idea of the free market itself requires informed players.

As I am sure/. is unaware, the Green Party candidate for the Presidency this year is Jill Stein. Ten years ago she debated Mitt Romney [c-spanvideo.org] and a Libertarian candidate for the gubernatorial race. This year neither she nor Mr. Johnson of the Libertarian Party have been able to debate Mitt. If this is how the national party representatives are treated, is it surprising that a House candidate is also given short shrift?

A sensible political system might indeed include mandatory airtime or debate privileges. As the parent poster has stated, this would require government action. Are you in favor of such a system? How do you justify telling a private company what to do? Why aren't you demanding this same privilege for your party at the national level -- did I miss that slashdot article?

P.S. : If any libertarians want to take up the gage, I have some general comment on your philosophy here. [slashdot.org]

Yes? Notice how you do not see him arguing for a law that ABC should be forced to televise him? Libertarianism is about not forcing people to do things. Critizing how things are done, however, is perfectly cromulent with being a libertarian.

Critizing how things are done, however, is perfectly cromulent with being a libertarian.

Oh come on. The mere act of criticizing something does not imply any philosophical views or ideals. (Well, unless your ideology specifies that nothing should ever be criticized. But that's not the case here.)

No, it's the reasoning and content of the criticism, viewed with the ideology of the person making that criticism, that determine if that person's criticism is valid or not. The reasoning behind this criticism is inconsistent with libertarian ideology, thus it's invalid.

Why is it that people assume that just because you are libertarian, that there should be no rules at all enforced by the government? Or is this typical group think? I mean, Democrats tend to buddy up to corporate interests as much as Republicans. Just look at all the corporate welfare in this country from both parties. At least libertarians aren't going to afford special protections to corporations... for that matter, it's more likely that corporate protections would be limited in favor of increased competition.

Specifically not posting as anon, and dumping my mods on this topic because I'm not afraid of people knowing my opinion here. More government subsidies, spending, and gross overreaching policies haven't made things better... perhaps those that founded our country on the premise of a limited federal government were right, and we should move towards that goal once again.

Why did this guy get marked troll? If you believe voting is any more real than pro wrestling I have some magic beans you might be interested in. Want proof? As much as I think the guy is snooker loopy on a lot of thing Alex Jones has the proof in video on his website. When the Ron Paul supporters asked to be heard according to the RNCs own rules they held a vote to change those rules and someone managed to get their cell camera to where you can see the teleprompter and the teleprompter had the results of the vote before the vote had been cast thus showing the whole process fake.

The "choices" you WILL get, no matter what you do, will be corporate approved shill A or B, that's it. Go to YouTube and watch the videos of those that actually counted the ballots in CN and NH where they say "The numbers for our district and what the RNC claimed are not even close" as Mittens was doing poorly in those states so they just gave him magical free votes. Remember if you control the primary outcome then it doesn't matter what happens in the general election, since both sides are "your guy" so its heads you win tails they lose. They control the primary process, they control the debates, they make sure only shills get the two slots so who gives a shit which shill gets it? A shill is a shill is a shill and as long as he'll cash the checks and give them the laws the corps don't give a rat's ass.

In the end I urge everyone to watch this video about voting [youtube.com] as while i don't agree with the libertarians on much, being more of a socialist myself, i have to agree with this libertarian on this issue, its pointless. you can't change a corrupt institution by using the rules set forth by that corrupt institution, because as with Paul they'll just change the rules and there is nothing you can do about it.

Personally I say grab every damned dime you can and wait for the collapse, which now is pretty much inevitable. Here is another video [youtube.com] by the same guy where he simply gives you the numbers and lets you decide. Look at the hockey stick chart in the middle of the video, in 1929 when the stock market collapsed we had 125% of GDP in the market and that took us to 1953 to fully recover to pre crash levels. How much do we have in now? Over 400% of GDP and rising which means when this bubble pops it'll make 1929 look like a minor glitch.

You have one party that is tax slightly and spend heavily, another that is give tax breaks and spend MORE heavily, nothing you can say or do will change the direction we are heading, a collapse is inevitable. Grab what you can, take care of your own, its all you can really do. On the bright side when the whole thing collapses hopefully we can start over and have a true democracy instead of the corporate sham we've had for half a century. Ike warned us the MIC would be just the start and he was right, now the corps own the whole show and its pro wrestling to entertain the public and keep their minds off what is really happening.

Sorry for the length but this is a subject I feel strongly about and I'll just end with the wisdom of George Carlin "Know why they call it The American Dream? Because you have to be asleep to believe in it".

Like I said, you own the primary process? You control the election. What amazes me is that so few realize that you have the ENTIRE MEDIA IN THE USA is owned by just a handful, less than the amount of people in your average Mickey D's on a weeknight!

I mean how can anyone with 2 functioning braincells think its anything but fixed? Again watch the video on voting, he says it better than i ever could. you have a handful of oligarchs at the top, old money with their fingers in all the pies and who own the media, that make damned sure the ONLY two that will EVAR get to the ballot will be both bought and paid for. Why do you think that every media pundit treats any third party candidate as a pariah? Because The Ds and Rs are all on the payroll and follow the corporate line.

So I hope many do as I'm gonna do and just not bother anymore, all you do by voting is give your sanction to a corrupt third world joke of a political process. the ballots may as well have only two choices 'Push here to say how much you love the system!" and "Show your anger for those in power...by voting to support the system!" because that's all you'll ever get, its fixed, been fixed for decades, its 3 card monty only the public just refuses to accept the fact they'll never win the game when the only winning move? Not to play at all.

Again its completely impossible to change a corrupt system by following the rules set up by that corrupt system, as they'll simply change the rules until they get the outcome they want. The debt will continue to spiral, we'll keep getting into wars we don't want, and trillions will be given to the MIC and the friends of the elite, there is no difference in the two sides its just phony differences to give the masses something to argue, that's all.

Yup. Years ago the people said, "THE STATES ARE JERKS, WE NEED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND STOP THEM." How well has that worked out? Federal government is being a jerk, who are we gonna get to put them back in line?

Once the real crisis hits it would be wonderful if we could get back to what the US was originally, a series of self governing states with a federal government whose main purpose was national defense.I want to live in a US where people care more about who their Governor is than who is President.

The whole point of the Federal system was to copy what made Western Europe rise to prominence, decentralized power. No leader could become too aggressive in taxes or rules because people and their money would simply leave. We saw this during the Jim Crow South. As bad as that was for blacks, it is a perfect example of how the system was supposed to work. Yes the southern states enacted stupidly racist legislation and the states paid for it. What young person in 1950 would look in the mirror and say to themselves, "I'm going to go make my fortune in Alabama." NOBODY.

About 6.5 million blacks between 1910 and 1970 simply moved from the Jim Crow South to states without those laws.Those that left tended to be the most motivated, hardest working, and most talented. Businesses did not want to move or operate in the South because maintaining two separate facilities for whites and blacks is expensive. As a result of their stupid actions the South became an economic backwater.

The vital part of this equation was the easy of movement between jurisdictions, both by the jurisdictions being small and movement between them being free. For a practical example,for people reading this to consider, imagine what it would take you to move two states away from where you are now. now imagine what it would take you to move two countries away from where you are now. The easier it is to move, the sooner the government will be punished for its stupid policies. First the money leaves, then the people leave.

Very few people have a positive view of Washington DC, the only reason anyone listens to what any of them say is because they hand out money. Once the printing press no longer works it's gonna get mighty interesting. They won't be able to use the military since, for starters, the military industrial complex has resulted in our military having such overpriced and under performing equipment that anything that actually does work will soon be out of service due to cost and logistics, leaving the DC forces with little more than M113s and C130s, much like what we had in Iraq, except with far less air support.

Second, you're going to have a portion desert and go fight for the state or local militias, whatever happens to pop up, and take as much heavy hardware as they can. How many actually do this is a wild card, but if the currency collapses and the infantry are basically working for food, expect to see fragging incidents begin at the very least.

Third, our military is so effective because everyone can trust everyone to do their job. In such a domestic crisis we will see that go out the window, in Vietnam, sabotage by conscripts was commonplace. Sabotage will be at the back of every ones mind and everyone will be watching their back.

Hopefully it will be a mostly peaceful transition back to the states asserting their sovereignty, trying different things out, copying what works and abandoning what doesn't. While people are free to move to the jurisdictions they find most attractive. Hope for the best,prepare for the worst.

I'm a libertarian. Been registered libertarian for most of the last 20 years. Have a Gary Johnson bumper sticker on my car right now.

Nevertheless, my reaction is the same. What is the point of this? Why would anyone care?

Neither of the following facts should be a surprise: (1) TV is a passive medium of communication designed for the lowest common denominator. (2) The US has a two-party system designed to lock out third parties.

These socio-economic forces work hand in hand with the same agenda. Sadly the American public thinks that there are really two controlling parties and business is on the outside of this circle of power except to write checks. The truth is that they're all one and the same.

You should have accepted those donations. That doesn't means you have to listen to whoever is giving you money. In fact, if I was you, I'd take their check, and then do the exact opposite of whatever they are asking for.

You're right, it's not about money. It's about him demonstrating that he has supporters other than the voices in his head. If you don't have those, you shouldn't expect to be able to take time away from candidates who do.

The world isn't as cynical as everyone makes it out to be. Whoever is organizing the debate wants to have serious candidates. They came up with a list of what qualifies a serious candidate. And this guy didn't make the list. It is possible that they would have come up with another excuse, but until it happens...you know innocent until proven guilty.

It doesn't say anything about who has to make the contributions. By the sound of things it could be people from his neighborhood. It doesn't have to be Halliburton.

And really, I'd bet it's more of a "If you don't have $50k, you don't actually have a serious campaign" type of requirement, in their opinion. I don't think it's a conspiracy to make sure you have corporate overlords, it's to make sure they don't have 500 whackjobs on stage preaching about all manner of insanity.

And really, I'd bet it's more of a "If you don't have $50k, you don't actually have a serious campaign" type of requirement, in their opinion. I don't think it's a conspiracy to make sure you have corporate overlords, it's to make sure they don't have 500 whackjobs on stage preaching about all manner of insanity.

I'm sure there are not 500 whackjobs on the ballot. This criteria along should get someone in the debate until the number of people on the ballot really does make that impractical. There is no excuse for the media not to include a local candidate for representative that is on the ballot. No reason other than blatant partisanship.

Completely agreed. Why would you go back on your morality for anything really....oh wait..... that's what the people in the debate do...and how they got there......is it any less corrupt across the pond? I am seriously debating on moving out of this country.

He says he's polling at 7 percent support in that district; let's take him at his word. That means to estimate his base of support we can multiply 7 percent by 260,618, which yields 18,243.

So what would it take to raise $50,000? If he limited himself to raising money strictly from that 7 percent -- who are presumably his base -- he'd only need them to give $2.75 each to hit that mark. Two dollars and seventy-five cents. If he raised his ask to $10 -- still a small ask in the world of political contributions -- he'd have $182,000. That's not a huge amount of money -- the current incumbent spent $2 million in the 2010 cycle -- but it can buy an awful lot of mailers, yard signs, campaign t-shirts, and other tools to get your name and message out. No corporate contributions required.

Look, I'm as big an advocate for getting money out of politics as you're likely to find, but this is simply not a case of being required to raise Big Money in order to play. You don't have to raise Big Money, you just have to raise some money, because without a little money you can't afford the most basic tools a campaign needs to win. There's nothing un-democratic about giving your supporters yard signs. If you can't rouse yourself to gather the resources needed to do even that, it shouldn't come as a shock when people start assuming you're not a serious candidate.

You don't have to raise Big Money, you just have to raise some money, because without a little money you can't afford the most basic tools a campaign needs to win. There's nothing un-democratic about giving your supporters yard signs. If you can't rouse yourself to gather the resources needed to do even that, it shouldn't come as a shock when people start assuming you're not a serious candidate.

Because you only need 2,000 signatures to get on the ballot. Get a few volunteers to stand around a local shopping mall and you can get that in a weekend or two. ABC has no interest in being required to put anyone on TV who has two friends and a couple free weekends. It would tend to undermine the usefulness of the debate to the viewer, anyway. I know I have no interest in hearing from a bunch of fringe candidates who can't possibly win. That's why they generally have some kind of cutoff of "serious can

A "strong candidate" would be able to raise $50k from private citizens. His immediate blaming of his lack of funds on his stance against corporate donations means either he 1) had no plan in place for soliciting donations from ordinary people who want him to win or 2) those people don't exist.

I'm not about to assume he had corporations beating down his door to throw money at him, and he spent so much time standing up for his principles he forgot all about the rest of running a campaign.

My neighbor might be a great politician - given the chance - he's got some great ideas, he can debate well, and I'm sure that if he took part in a televised debate he might do pretty good and grab vote share from his opponents.

Do you really believe that? Do you believe it enough to give him $10 to help him advertise this fact to others? No? Then is he really that great?

If his campaign isn't organized enough to get the word out and find people willing to support him and his principles, or there aren't actually many such people, then he doesn't have a chance given debate airtime or not. And yes I do think the ability to manage a staff to accomplish a goal has a lot to do with fulfilling the role of a politician. There's a lot

I mean, the ABC affiliate doesn't even NEED a reason to exclude you, right? It's their station. You want to be on TV, buy your own affiliate. Right? Isn't that the "free market" at work? Are you saying they should be FORCED to let you into the debate?

Libertarians are nothing but Republicans that are upset they aren't rich/powerful enough to fuck people in the ass. They want it to be easier to get into the "Fuck you, I've got mine" club.

You see, you're playing the same game the 2 party system wants you to. You lump everything into "republican" or "democrat" and then, once you've placed a person, idea or proposal into it's basked you pick the most extreme ideas in that party and make a strait line from A to B. He's libertarian, which is the same as republican, which is conservative... Nazis... HE WANTS TO KILL THE JEWS!!!!

Well fuck... you're wrong. Libertarians are not republicans. Libertarians just have some ideas that are more congruent with the republican party than the democratic party. On many issues libertarians are much more liberal than Democrats will ever be. Gay marriage for example... Libertarians don't even think marriage should be something the government has anything to do with. Mary a goat for all they care. That's between you and your religion.

Then you get into this nonsense about the station should have free speech. Sure, they should. But so does this fellow. They can exclude him from the debate, and then he has the right to make a big stink about it and make them look like shills for the 2 major parties, which in fact, they are. It's not like he's suing them. And even if he were to... there's no 100% right way to be a libertarian. He can have his own views, and be as Libertarian as he wants to be. Just because you're libertarian doesn't mean you want to shut down public schools and start selling missile launchers at the local walmart tomorrow. There's plenty of middle ground.

Climb out of our political parties sand trap and start think for yourself for a change.

On many issues libertarians are much more liberal than Democrats will ever be. Gay marriage for example... Libertarians don't even think marriage should be something the government has anything to do with. Mary a goat for all they care. That's between you and your religion.

Let's not get too carried away now; I think most Libertarians would still care about all parties being capable of consent. So maybe group marriage would be OK, but marrying animals and children not so much.

>. Libertarians don't even think marriage should be something the government has anything to do with.

It's this idea and others that make the Libertarians look like loonies.

Marriage has been, and is always, a public statement of contract. It is basically civil in nature. Whatever religiosity that is thrown around it is mere window dressing. With this idea that the government should not be involved in validating marriages, you alienate *both* the religious nutjobs, and people like me who think one of the functions of government is to make things like contracts enforceable.

Yes it is their station. However the airways are owned by the commons and are licensed to them by the public. The license mandates that the stations provide equal access to political candidates.

From the Communications Act:

"If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any political office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station."

There is nothing anti-libertarian about insisting they live up to their contractual obligations.

You don't think thats a bit of a generalization? Also there are degree's of Libertarians. I consider myself one, but think Regulations are absolutely vital, and we have a duty as a country to provide things like foodstamps. and from a fiscal stand point a government run healthcare is just common sense.

I have yet to hear a single Libertarian claim that anarchy is a good thing. Every Libertarian I have ever discussed politics has taken the stance that Government was a necessary evil, and that the goal should be to only use it in places that can't work without it. It should be a measure of last resort. What constitutes a necessary place would differ from Libertarian to Libertarian, but none of them have said that there should be no government at all.

Trying to paint Libertarians as Anarchists doesn't make you right. In fact it makes you that much more wrong.

1. $50,000 is not a high amount and doesn't require corporate donations. I've seen missionaires collect more money from friends and family than that.2. Why are you posting to Slashdot about this? I may not like ABC's position, but have no control over it.3. Why did Slashdot accept this? They aren't even close to their mission statement on this

I'm sorry but; 50g's is a lot of money. Missionaries collecting that just from family and friends? I take it you live in Manhattan? I come from a fairly intelligent professional family, but none of my family members *own* a home more less have thousands of dollars burning holes in their pockets. Any extra cash laying around from my family and friends is in their rainy day fund because they need one or being slowly saved to get something a little pleasant, think 50 dollars a month until they can afford a nice big screen tv after a full year. Not the kind of money that would ever amount to 50 grand.

People with means are apparantly clueless about what the average household revenue and costs are just to stay afloat.

Let's put it this way. A would-be Congresscritter who wants to play with the big boys at the debate, but who can't raise $50,000, is like the would-be ace pilot who can't even afford a pair of aviator's sunglasses.

I agree with your first statement about not interfering with the private company's choice. But, I disagree about wasting people's time. I would bet that many people, especially conservatives that only vote Republican because that's what they think conservatives are supposed to do, would be surprised and possibly learn that there are other options besides the Republicans. In some ways, that's what the Tea Party was all about, unfortunately it had no real leadership.

This is ABC's decision. As a Libertarian surely you wouldn't want to interfere with the choice that a private company made.

Ahh, yes, that old trotted out stupid fallacy. If you don't want a government to interfere in a decision, that must mean you think every decision made by a corporate entity should be met with a tub full of KY-jelly and a re-enactment of the scene from goatse.

For your information, it is possible to object to a decision, or even something someone said, without asking a government to back up your objection with violence. It's even possible to arrange a boycott, or a protest outside a studio, or any number of other private or popular actions in protest of a decision you don't like, yet none of those require the invocation of coercive force.

Not that I'm really much of a liberatarian in many ways. But this stupidity always really irritates me.

You shouldn't need corporate donations to reach the $50,000 mark. You could do it with $5000 people donating $10 each. That's 0.076% of the Massachusetts population. I think it is a fairly reasonable concept that if you can't do that you are not a serious candidate.

The current rules for the Presidential debates came about as a response to Perot's success. You have do even better than he did to get your foot in the door. Even if someone managed it, they could just as easily up the requirements again...

you arent being kicked out for refusing corporate donations. you are being refused because you havent even raised 50K and are polling at less than 15%.

hate to say it but if I were an ABC affiliate trying to configure the program schedule around the advertising revenue im supposed to be selling, id probably try to keep the forums brief and ensure key folks who pay me for ads get a seat. republicans and democrats will pay me for ad space, but they might not pay me much if i include 40 other no-name candidates willing to bother their candidates with actual debate.

if you're a libertarian bitching about capitalism, you might not be running under the correct ticket.

libertarian and constitutionalists often cross-over with their goals and ideas. its clearly obvious that the two assholes we have fighting for the seat right now dont give two shits about civil liberties or the constitution. I couldnt stand the patriot act, I cant stand PIPA and SOPA, I dont like the arming of every federal office and I sure as hell dont like the extrajudicial assasination of a 16yr old boy who was the english voice of al queda without so much as a trial. And as much as I dislike the presi

The only thing I see to support your claim that you "moved a very partisan crowd in my favor" is a single sentence:

Fishman, perhaps sensing that many in the room were swayed, told voters to consider him, despite his long odds.

That said I wish you luck, it sounds like the other two candidates are both complete jerks: "Don't vote for him because he's a REPUBLICAN"..."Oh yea? Well don't vote for him because he's a DEMOCRAT". Yup, that's how I evaluate a candidate.

Plus this is completely off topic and doesn't belong on slashdot in the first place.

The media doesn't want to upset the applecart, especially by putting on one of those dirty 'libertarians'. Heck, even in this Slashdot article you have people erecting strawman arguments and then asking why you're upset.

But really, what it is is that the media loves the advertising money from the candidates. It's in their best interests to promulgate the idea that advertising and money wins elections, because that money is spent on them. So they go out of their way to avoid providing free advertising to any candidate who hasn't paid them for enough paid advertising.

And the two party system is a great source of the kind of fake controversy over irrelevant issues that is the bread and butter of mass media. So they don't really want that to go away either. Too much money tied up in keeping things just as they are.

Here's an idea:1. Take the money from the companies2. Deposit it in a bank3. Take out money to donate (anonymously) to people and groups that are fighting against the companies that are trying to grease your hand4. Feel good about yourself and keep on sticking it to the companies

For perspective of how low a bar $50,000 is, open secrets [opensecrets.org] has the FEC data for the race. Both of the top 2 candidates have raised over $1.4 million dollars as of 2 months ago, and have likely raised a bunch more since. Even excluding PAC/other money they have raised $866k/$1.22m.

Out of curiosity, what made you run third party rather than trying to fix things from within? There are obstacles either way of course, was there something that made you convinced whichever party you were closer to ideologically was irreparably damaged? Did you consider, or did you run in a republican or democratic party?

I still believe Obama actually wanted to fix a lot of things. I think he quickly found out a few reasons why he can't make any serious change... dark secret reasons. Yeah, I know "conspiracy theory -- ignore the nut bag." I didn't vote for Obama... I voted Libertarian. But the change in Obama was remarkable and I don't think it's because 'he's just crooked like the rest of them.' I think Kennedy was the last rebel from the backstage establishment and we know how that ended up.

Obama: I want to close Gitmo, and get the prisoners tried in a civilian court.
CIA Director: Yeah... look, that's not going to happen. We've a few skeletons in the closet there. If you did that, it'd be embarassing when they got out. I'm afraid that even if you ordered it, we'd have to stall for months. It's just reflect badly on you.
Democratic congressmen: A nice idea, but the republicans would tear us up on national security if we supported that. We've got elections in two years. Sorry, but we'd have to vote against any bill to do so.
Obama: Oh.

wait what? voting IS the way to fix things from within, right? why is voting for third, fourth, fifth, or sixth parties not fixing from within? You know, the solutions to the problems we face cannot be flattened into democrat and/or republican ideology.

Indeed. In New Hampshire, we haven't had a Libertarian in a state-level or higher office since the 1990s. However, we have about forty outright-pro-liberty Republicans in the 400-member State House right now (a dozen of which are the so-called freestaters [freestateproject.org]). We've had one pro-liberty Democrat get elected, too (Rep. Joel Winters, 2006-2010), and a handful of other liberty activists have run as Democrats, too.

What we've learned from New Hampshire politics: Both the major parties have pro-liberty elements; with

no shit he did not. Maybe he wouldn't win with fair treatment but the biggest problem is everybody and their dog tried their best to marginalize him and show him as a non viable candidate despite double digit support. You need a strong start in primary season if you want to get to the finish line but all the pundits did right from the start was downplaying RP's importance and tirelessly pointing to Mittens as the chosen one.The list of mysterious errors in MSM underestimating his score or outright omissions

He is excluded because he couldn't raise a piddling $50,000. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE $50,000 COME FROM CORPORATE DONORS! The pathetic liar (a trait that is disgustingly common in right-wing candidates this year) couldn't get $50,000 and chose to blame corporations, a bizarre statement to hear from a Libertarian to say the least.

He is excluded because he couldn't raise a piddling $50,000. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE $50,000 COME FROM CORPORATE DONORS! The pathetic liar (a trait that is disgustingly common in right-wing candidates this year) couldn't get $50,000 and chose to blame corporations, a bizarre statement to hear from a Libertarian to say the least.

The HELL you say! A politician bending the truth to fit his own narrative?! Not in this man's America, no siree Bob!

Campaign contributions are a useful proxy for "does anyone care that this guy/gal is running." If nobody cares enough about your candidacy to throw you a couple bucks, the odds are very high that you're a marginal/crank candidate rather than a serious one, and candidates with no support shouldn't waste valuable time in a debate.
There are other systems you could devise to filter out cranks from a political debate, but they're just as likely to be complained about by the cranks as this one.

Getting $50,000 in contributions may not show that lots of people support you, but not being able to get $50,000 in contributions is a pretty good sign that no-one supports you, for the reasons above.The submitter says he's polling 7%; he's not, he's polling 7% in a poll of 401 people with a stated error margin almost as big as that 7%. The fact that he can't raise $50,000 suggests that he's probably close to the bottom of that error bound.

Under the current rules, third parties can never win or achieve anything in the US.

What you yanks need is electoral form, including:

1. Compulsory voting. It tends to suppress the loony extremes (of all sides) and makes politicians start pandering to the politically apathetic majority rather than extremist nut-cases. If you ever take the time to look at the american political system from the outside you'll realise what an amazingly good thing this would be. Your politicians are scary...they're completely insane. It's terrifying that these lunatics could be elected to positions of power in the world's one remaining superpower....it's even more terrifying that these people could have that power at a time when the america empire is collapsing - your influence and global political relevance are dwindling.

I know many of you yanks think compulsory voting is immoral or something, that if someone's apathetic then they don't deserve the vote....but a) being politically apathetic means they just want to be left alone, they're not volunteering to be shat on, and b) they're most likely apathetic because (under the current system) it makes no difference whether they vote or not.

2. Some form of preferential voting so that voting for third-party or independent candidates is not a complete waste of a vote....You can vote for your favoured third-party candidate knowing that if he/she doesn't win, you vote will pass to your 2nd choice (and then to your third then fourth, etc choices).

The Condorcet method [wikipedia.org] is good but probably beyond what the average vote can understand, Alternative Ballot [wikipedia.org] is also good and easy enough for the average voter to understand.

3. State-level reform of your electoral college system - specifically eliminate winner-takes-all as an option. if 51% of the voters in a state prefer candidate A as president then that candidate should get 51% of that state's presidential votes, not 100%.

4. Paper ballots.

5. Make it harder (if not impossible) to disenfranchise people from their vote. Dropping people from electoral rolls should only be done *individually* never in bulk, with hand-signed (not automated) notification from the State's top electoral official at least six months before it affects a person's voting rights (if there's an election before then, they're still entitled to vote). Notification must include the cause, and legal causes must be strictly limited. *ANY* objection by the individual should immediately re-instate their voting rights until and unless the state can show cause in court why that individual should be disenfranchised.

6. Even felons should have voting rights, even while serving their sentences - but certainly once they've done their time. This is especially important when you consider that many felonies are victimless crimes like drug use....if a law is wrong then those convicted of it need to be able to vote to get that law changed.

The voting system has more features than who appears on a ballot. Appearing on a ballot doesn't overcome the spoiler effect: less established parties are recursively seen as not viable and then can't establish viability. It's a predictable effect of "first past the post" voting systems.

So I'm guessing you think every anti-religion atheist also thinks building churches should be illegal? That's the same line of logic your assuming there. I'm not a libertarian but I'm amazed at how intellectually dishonest people are in politics, and people gang up on libertarians in particular because I think libertarians just make them really, really angry--the permissiveness of libertarians combined with the lack of economic control liberals want seems to inflame everybody.

I rather thought ABC is a private business, so from a Libertarian point of view, I would think they could decide whatever they want as far as who to include on their own debate?

Or, if you are not accepting corporate donations, why are you interested in going on a debate that is essentially sponsored by a corporation -- i.e. ABC -- and their advertisers?

Unless there is something else here, this sounds a bit petulant.

Creating legislation forcing ABC to permit his participation in the debate would be against Libertarian principals. Applying public pressure to revise their policy is not. I don't think you really understand Libertarian principals at all.

Nonsense. The differences between our two parties are so narrow, that it's a waste of time having a debate between them. The debates don't matter, hell the election itself doesn't even matter. Crony capitalists will win and civil libertarians will lose.

Does a third party candidate have a chance to win? No, but he will raise important issues, and that's what really matters.

is there a serious libertarian politician who wants to curtail intellectual property law? everyone i've seen (i.e. all recent LP prez candidates and a few others) has been very pro-patent since it creates private property (which, to them, is freedom by definition) and helps business. or maybe it's because they have an authoritarian mindset and believe that IP puts more power in the hands of Effective Businessmen, who are good and virtuous by definition. whatever. is there one?